Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: May 30, 2012 8:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Today in the News (Dylan and the not-Dead)

I love Dylan's work, but I don't think he should get the Nobel prize .
GREIL MARCUS probably speaks for many when, asked if he thinks Dylan will ‘ever get the Nobel Prize for Literature’, replies: ‘I hope not. There are thousands of novelists more deserving than he is. It’s a prize for literature; he’s a songwriter, he’s a singer, he’s a performer. Anyway, Bob Dylan’s won lots of awards, he doesn’t need this one. There are plenty of people who need the money, need the readers.’
As for his White House appearance, He looks ridiculous, and a bit uneasy/embarrassed recipients. And I can't help but feel like his "celebrity status" ( everyone else appeared alphabetically , Bob was saved for last ) is being used for political purposes . But when I look a the long list of the other recipients , he certainly deserves it as much as anyone . Why does his song "Day of the Locusts", or "Man of Peace", come to mind .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deyzof49 Date: May 30, 2012 10:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Today in the News (Dylan and the not-Dead)

Tombstone Blues came to my mind.
'John the Baptist after torturing a thief
Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
Saying, tell me great hero, but please make it brief
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?'

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: May 30, 2012 10:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Today in the News (Dylan and the not-Dead)

"There are plenty of people who need the money, need the readers."

Is that what the Nobel Prize in Literature is about? Its a publicity stunt? I am more familiar with the Medicine and Chemistry awards and they are given for recognition of finding that significantly changed science or healthcare. I think it is pretty clear that Dylan's writings, even if they are lyrics, have had a profound effect on humanity over the last 50 years.

Side note. In medicine or chemistry they cite a single paper from the winner as part of the award. If they do the same in literature what Dylan tune would be the Nobel winner?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: May 30, 2012 10:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Today in the News (Dylan and the not-Dead)

I guess it's for a single paper in the sciences because that single paper is the culmination of an extraordinary amount of work, and it's that paper, specifically, that makes the difference.

Whereas in literature, they seem to award it for a body of work. But in looking at the winners over the past 100-plus years, it also seems to amount to just being another prize for being Really Really Good. The judges don't seem to talk about impact when they hand out the award.

This year it was Tomas Tranströmer "because, through his condensed, translucent images, he gives us fresh access to reality." Of course, that' what really good literature ALWAYS does. According to Wikipedia, he's one of the most important Scandinavian poets since WWII. OK, so that's cool, and in that case the Nobel does serve to let people know about him, but if it's about publicity, isn't that the OPPOSITE of the Science Nobels? If somebody's work "significantly changed science or healthcare," that means the prize is given specifically for its well-knownness (and the impact that had.) It's recognition for already having had an incredible impact; not a way to get people to know someone who deserves more attention.

On Transtromer and the Nobels for literature and the generally mixed reaction:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/oct/07/tomas-transtromer-nobel-prize-literature-mixed-response

William Golding got it in 1983 "for his novels which, with the perspicuity of realistic narrative art and the diversity and universality of myth, illuminate the human condition in the world of today." So even in that case -- Golding being known for Lord of the Flies, of course -- it's not for one specific work, and doesn't seem to address impact.

It seems to have started that way, too: >The Nobel Prize in Literature 1907 was awarded to Rudyard Kipling "in consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author."

List of literary Nobels:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/

So by that rationale, giving it to Dylan actually would make no sense, because he's (a) not a traditional novelist or poet, and (b) it would be about impact on others, which the Nobels in literature specifically AREN'T and never have been.

That's actually rather sad to realize, IMO. Although I guess a big well-publicized global award for being Really Good is nice from the standpoint of serving as yet another list of Writers I Should Check Out But Actually Never Will.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: May 31, 2012 3:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Today in the News (Dylan and the not-Dead)

Very interesting, thanks for looking in to that. However I agree that it appears that Dylan has no shot based on those criteria.

I think the science winners are probably well known amongst scientists but i doubt they are well known by the public. Additionally some times impact is hard to measure. Peyton Rous received his award decades after his finding. He found that a filtrate of a chicken tumor when injected to a healthy chicken, caused a tumor in the early 1900s. No one really understood what a virus was at the time, let alone one that carried a tumor causing oncogene. He received the prize in Medicine or Physiology in 1966. To receive the prize you must be alive. Rous was like 87 when he received his award so he was fortunate enough to have lived long enough to be recognized once science caught up with him.